This also shouldn't fly under the (political) radar

[Bob78164]

So why is this worth a constitutional battle? --Bob

Perhaps AG Holder and President Obama would care to answer the question?

A subpeona was issued by one branch of government concerning why it was misled (DOJ said "no gunwalking." Then 10 months later retracted that letter) Congress wants to know why it was misled.

Another choose to ignore it until the last minute when the claim of executive privilege was made.

A battle does seem to take two sides.

Of course, House Republicans have a demonstrated history of being oh so reasonable.

The Justice Department certainly did not ignore the subpoena. They objected to it and attempted to negotiate. The House majority, even after seeing some of the documents, decided it wasn't satisfied. Don't recall them saying why not, though.

It's not as though they've pointed to a document and said, "We think this means you're still hiding something." This isn't about oversight any more. They're just looking to score political points. --Bob

[Flybrick]

Ok, Bob, you win. It's all politics, all the time.

The life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE agent (I keep saying DEA, but in error) Jaime Zapata, and the heretofore largely anonymous several hundred dead Mexicans don't figure in this at all.

We should all just move on with a "oopsie." Can't have Congress, even if of the opposition party, try to exercise its role of oversight because it's "political." It's ok for the executive branch to ignore a subpeona and then claim executive privilege at the last minute because they know best and we the people, via Congress, should trust them. They aren't "political," but rather more interested in enforcing drug, illegal weapons and explosives, and immigration laws.

Switch the identities of the political parties for each role and tell us with a straight face you'd be holding the same position. But that's not "political." That'd be seeking justice for a dead Border Patrol agent, a dead ICE agent, and several hundred dead Mexicans.

With more deaths to come according to AG Holder's own words since nearly half of the weapons - numbering well into the hundreds - are still unaccounted for.

I have a different view of politics than you. Getting our people killed, never mind those of a neighbor, because of government action and then not disclosing everything about the operation reeks of cover-up. And to date, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE. No firings, no demotions, no reprimands, no nothing.

And the Border Patrol agent, the ICE agent, and the Mexicans are still dead.

Tell us again about "politics."

[Bob78164]

Ok, Bob, you win. It's all politics, all the time.

The life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE agent (I keep saying DEA, but in error) Jaime Zapata, and the heretofore largely anonymous several hundred dead Mexicans don't figure in this at all.

We should all just move on with a "oopsie." Can't have Congress, even if of the opposition party, try to exercise its role of oversight because it's "political." It's ok for the executive branch to ignore a subpeona and then claim executive privilege at the last minute because they know best and we the people, via Congress, should trust them. They aren't "political," but rather more interested in enforcing drug, illegal weapons and explosives, and immigration laws.

Switch the identities of the political parties for each role and tell us with a straight face you'd be holding the same position. But that's not "political." That'd be seeking justice for a dead Border Patrol agent, a dead ICE agent, and several hundred dead Mexicans.

With more deaths to come according to AG Holder's own words since nearly half of the weapons - numbering well into the hundreds - are still unaccounted for.

I have a different view of politics than you. Getting our people killed, never mind those of a neighbor, because of government action and then not disclosing everything about the operation reeks of cover-up. And to date, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE. No firings, no demotions, no reprimands, no nothing.

And the Border Patrol agent, the ICE agent, and the Mexicans are still dead.

Tell us again about "politics."

And the investigation has gotten to the bottom of that. Some low-level agents went rogue, starting in the latter parts of the Bush Administration and continuing into the Obama Administration. (By the way, has the Committee called any officials of the Bush Administration to testify?) Everyone knows it was a terrible idea, and no one thinks Holder knew about it or authorized it. Moreover, the investigation has ceased to be about how long it took Holder to learn about it or to stop it.

Now if we want to talk about dead people, let's start talking about all of the people who have died in the last five years because no health insurance was available to them. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Ok, Bob, you win. It's all politics, all the time.

The life of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE agent (I keep saying DEA, but in error) Jaime Zapata, and the heretofore largely anonymous several hundred dead Mexicans don't figure in this at all.

We should all just move on with a "oopsie." Can't have Congress, even if of the opposition party, try to exercise its role of oversight because it's "political." It's ok for the executive branch to ignore a subpeona and then claim executive privilege at the last minute because they know best and we the people, via Congress, should trust them. They aren't "political," but rather more interested in enforcing drug, illegal weapons and explosives, and immigration laws.

Switch the identities of the political parties for each role and tell us with a straight face you'd be holding the same position. But that's not "political." That'd be seeking justice for a dead Border Patrol agent, a dead ICE agent, and several hundred dead Mexicans.

With more deaths to come according to AG Holder's own words since nearly half of the weapons - numbering well into the hundreds - are still unaccounted for.

I have a different view of politics than you. Getting our people killed, never mind those of a neighbor, because of government action and then not disclosing everything about the operation reeks of cover-up. And to date, NOT ONE PERSON HAS BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE. No firings, no demotions, no reprimands, no nothing.

And the Border Patrol agent, the ICE agent, and the Mexicans are still dead.

Tell us again about "politics."

And the investigation has gotten to the bottom of that. Some low-level agents went rogue, starting in the latter parts of the Bush Administration and continuing into the Obama Administration. (By the way, has the Committee called any officials of the Bush Administration to testify?) Everyone knows it was a terrible idea, and no one thinks Holder knew about it or authorized it. Moreover, the investigation has ceased to be about how long it took Holder to learn about it or to stop it.

Now if we want to talk about dead people, let's start talking about all of the people who have died in the last five years because no health insurance was available to them. --Bob

Bob. Bob. Bob. That has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. At all. But, if you're going to bring it up, how do you know they didn't have insurance because they chose not to have it? After all, a HUGE percentage of Americans are and were already insured. You're talking about the SMALL percentage of those who aren't and weren't. Give me the details of those who weren't insured, and then, let's talk about the fact that Fast and Furious wasn't a Bush deal to begin with. But, similar operations were, in conjunction with the actual Mexican government, but they didn't end with people dead. There's a certain incompetency involved there, along with the lying to cover up the incompetency or whatever it was.

[TheCalvinator24]

It's not as though they've pointed to a document and said, "We think this means you're still hiding something." This isn't about oversight any more. They're just looking to score political points. --Bob

Actually, Issa pretty much said exactly that on the floor of the House today. Only it wasn't a single document. It was a stack of documents that were provided that raised more questions and prompted the demand for more information and documents. Issa made the point that the confidential nature of the stack of documents had been protected by the House.

[Bob78164]

But, if you're going to bring it up, how do you know they didn't have insurance because they chose not to have it? After all, a HUGE percentage of Americans are and were already insured. You're talking about the SMALL percentage of those who aren't and weren't. Give me the details of those who weren't insured . . . .

Dep't of Health & Human Servs., Nat'l Ctr. for Health Statistics, Summary Health Statistics for the U.S. Population: National Health Interview Survey -- 2009, Ser. 10, No. 248, at 71 n.2 (Dec. 2010) (of the 50,000,000 uninsured Americans, "did not want or need coverage" received too few responses to warrant its own category. The most common reasons why people lack coverage is the high cost of insurance, followed by loss of job, an employer's unwillingness to offer insurance or an insurer's cover those with preexisting medical conditions, and loss of Medicaid coverage. See id. at Table 25. --Bob

[Flybrick]

Meanwhile, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, several hundred Mexican citizens are still dead due, in at least part, to the actions of the United States Government and the Department of Justice and its subordinate components specifically.

Dead.

Nearly 1,000 weapons are still unaccounted for and the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has stated that more people were likely to die because of this operation.

And not one person has been held responsible.

Not one.

[minimetoo26]

Meanwhile, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, ICE Agent Jaime Zapata, several hundred Mexican citizens are still dead due, in at least part, to the actions of the United States Government and the Department of Justice and its subordinate components specifically.

Dead.

Nearly 1,000 weapons are still unaccounted for and the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, has stated that more people were likely to die because of this operation.

And not one person has been held responsible.

Not one.

Okay--Operation Wide Receiver: Good

Operation Fast and Furious: Bad

Right?

[Flybrick]

Okay--Operation Wide Receiver: Good

Operation Fast and Furious: Bad

Right?

Absolutely not.

Investigate it all.

BUT, what is known about Wide Receiver is that it was a joint US/Mexican operation. We, the US Government conducted the operation with the cooperation and knowledge of the Mexican government.

Fast and Furious was kept secret from the Mexicans, indeed, the US Government lied to the Mexican Government when questioned about it. (Reread this thread to find those facts as reported.)

That said, the concept of letting incredibly violent drug cartels acquire thousands of weapons is stupid to the point of heinousness. Under any administration.

Investigate both, and others, if need be.

Hold those responsible for criminal acts responsible legally. Hold those responsible administratively to at least public exposure.

We, finally, fired a GSA employee who squandered nearly $1M in party funds.

Doesn't someone who gets hundreds of people killed deserved at least a news story?

[minimetoo26]

Okay--Operation Wide Receiver: Good

Operation Fast and Furious: Bad

Right?

Absolutely not.

Investigate it all.

BUT, what is known about Wide Receiver is that it was a joint US/Mexican operation. We, the US Government conducted the operation with the cooperation and knowledge of the Mexican government.

Fast and Furious was kept secret from the Mexicans, indeed, the US Government lied to the Mexican Government when questioned about it. (Reread this thread to find those facts as reported.)

That said, the concept of letting incredibly violent drug cartels acquire thousands of weapons is stupid to the point of heinousness. Under any administration.

Investigate both, and others, if need be.

Hold those responsible for criminal acts responsible legally. Hold those responsible administratively to at least public exposure.

We, finally, fired a GSA employee who squandered nearly $1M in party funds.

Doesn't someone who gets hundreds of people killed deserved at least a news story?

It's front page news here. Don't know about where you live, though...

[tlynn78]

Okay--Operation Wide Receiver: Good

Operation Fast and Furious: Bad

Right?

Absolutely not.

Investigate it all.

BUT, what is known about Wide Receiver is that it was a joint US/Mexican operation. We, the US Government conducted the operation with the cooperation and knowledge of the Mexican government.

Fast and Furious was kept secret from the Mexicans, indeed, the US Government lied to the Mexican Government when questioned about it. (Reread this thread to find those facts as reported.)

That said, the concept of letting incredibly violent drug cartels acquire thousands of weapons is stupid to the point of heinousness. Under any administration.

Investigate both, and others, if need be.

Hold those responsible for criminal acts responsible legally. Hold those responsible administratively to at least public exposure.

We, finally, fired a GSA employee who squandered nearly $1M in party funds.

Doesn't someone who gets hundreds of people killed deserved at least a news story?

It's front page news here. Don't know about where you live, though...

Here, too. Nearly a year after Fly first posted here about it. Good thing there's no political bias in news reporting.

t.

[mrkelley23]

Yeah. I was going to point out the coincidental nature of the fact that it is finally front page news, and the issuance of contempt citations.

It also cracks me up that Holder's apologists are now saying, "Well, this is old news. This stuff happened almost two years ago." Ye-e-e-ah, because that's approximately how long Holder's been stalling the investigation. Even if I didn't already think he was guilty of something, the stalling and stonewalling sure makes him look guilty of SOMETHING.

[Flybrick]

In the "You Can't Make This Up" Department:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Texas-Pols

The Department of Justice is asserting that the governor of Texas, as well as state legislators, have no executive or deliberative process privilege to shield documents -- even as Eric Holder and President Obama assert executive and deliberative process privilege to shield documents from Congress in its investigation of Fast & Furious.

In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.

In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”

DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.

The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”

Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.

Now I have no idea if the concept of executive privilege for a state executive and branch and dealing with the federal government is valid or not.

But, it's damned sure ironic.










wait for it...

[Bob78164]

In the "You Can't Make This Up" Department:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... Texas-Pols

The Department of Justice is asserting that the governor of Texas, as well as state legislators, have no executive or deliberative process privilege to shield documents -- even as Eric Holder and President Obama assert executive and deliberative process privilege to shield documents from Congress in its investigation of Fast & Furious.

In fact, the Justice Department filed motions in April and May to compel Texas to produce those documents. In one motion filed on April 25, DOJ argued that there was no “deliberative process privilege over documents in the possession, custody, or control of the Office of the Governor.” The Texas governor has a potentially stronger claim of privilege than even the one asserted by President Obama, because Obama is shielding DOJ documents and agency deliberations that do not involve his own White House communications and his own personal decisions. In other words, the very type of stronger executive privilege that would protect presidential communications is, according to Eric Holder, non-existent when it comes to the chief executive of Texas.

In that same motion, Holder asserts that there is no privilege protecting “communications between a legislator and a state agency, as well as to purely internal documents produced by a state agency after communications with a legislator.” Yet in the Fast and Furious investigation, Holder has asserted that executive privilege covers his department’s communications and “purely internal documents.” Compare DOJ’s claim in the Texas case to the statement of White House spokesman Eric Schultz who said that the “Courts have routinely considered deliberative process privilege claims and affirmed the right of the executive branch to invoke the privilege even when White House documents are not involved.”

DOJ also argued that there is no legislative privilege shielding communications between and by state legislators similar to the “Speech or Debate Clause” that protects congressional representatives under the Constitution. DOJ tried to convince the court that even if there was such a privilege, it should “yield to the important federal interest in enforcing the Voting Rights Act” and should be “abrogated” because of the supposedly “extraordinary procedural irregularities associated” with the passage of the voter ID law.

The other interesting fact in this litigation that again shows up the Holder Justice Department, as well as the White House, is that Texas produced a detailed privilege log that describes the documents the state is withholding, as is required in any dispute over privileged documents. Justice argued in its motion to compel that “the privilege log [produced by Texas] is insufficient to determine the propriety of the assertion of privilege over some documents.”

Yet the Obama administration has produced no such privilege log or list whatsoever of the documents it claims are shielded from disclosure. The whole purpose of such a log is to make sure each document has been thoroughly reviewed by the party claiming the privilege so that no broad, sweeping claim is made without an individual review. And as Justice argues in the Texas case, it gives that other party the ability to contest the attachment of the privilege to specific documents that the party does not believe should be shielded. But the Holder Justice Department and the White House have not complied with this requirement.

Now I have no idea if the concept of executive privilege for a state executive and branch and dealing with the federal government is valid or not.

But, it's damned sure ironic.










wait for it...

I think you've hit the crux of the matter. You can't use a state-law privilege against a federal investigation. --Bob

[Flybrick]

I did not think irony was aerodynamic.

[Bob78164]

Here is a story by Fortune Magazine. The first line of the subtitle: "A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels."

Here's a bit more from the story: "Quite simply, there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.

"Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that Voth and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies. Fortune reviewed more than 2,000 pages of confidential ATF documents and interviewed 39 people, including seven law-enforcement agents with direct knowledge of the case. Several, including Voth, are speaking out for the first time." --Bob

[Flybrick]

Yet the Department of Justice admitted that guns were walked when they retracted, 10 months later, the letter they sent Congress saying that no guns were walked. Both letters have been covered in this thread with sources listed.

Incompetence or ignorance, take your pick.

Either way, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and several hundred Mexicans are dead due to the operation.

And not one person within the ATF or the DOJ has been held responsible.

Not one.

And more people, according to the Attorney General himself, are likely to die because nearly a 1,000 weapons are still unaccounted for.

And still not one person is held responsible.

Not one.

[Bob78164]

Yet the Department of Justice admitted that guns were walked when they retracted, 10 months later, the letter they sent Congress saying that no guns were walked. Both letters have been covered in this thread with sources listed.

Incompetence or ignorance, take your pick.

Either way, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and several hundred Mexicans are dead due to the operation.

And not one person within the ATF or the DOJ has been held responsible.

Not one.

And more people, according to the Attorney General himself, are likely to die because nearly a 1,000 weapons are still unaccounted for.

And still not one person is held responsible.

Not one.

And it looks like the House, led by a chairman with a firearms conviction on his record, has seriously cocked up the investigation. If this story is right, the House concluded that Fast and Furious involved gunrunning when it didn't. If the story is right, the House decided to buy into stories told by people with their own agendas who happened to be peddling a story they liked. Kind of like Bush buying Maliki's stories. If the story is right, by turning Fast and Furious into a political football, the House has induced ATF to reduce firearms interdictions in and around Phoenix by more than 90%.

And let me remind you, this story isn't from MSNBC or The New York Times. It's from Fortune Magazine, not a particular friend to this Administration.

Is there any wonder the Administration is responding with caution? --Bob

[Flybrick]

And it looks like the House, led by a chairman with a firearms conviction on his record, has seriously cocked up the investigation. If this story is right, the House concluded that Fast and Furious involved gunrunning when it didn't. If the story is right, the House decided to buy into stories told by people with their own agendas who happened to be peddling a story they liked. Kind of like Bush buying Maliki's stories. If the story is right, by turning Fast and Furious into a political football, the House has induced ATF to reduce firearms interdictions in and around Phoenix by more than 90%.

And let me remind you, this story isn't from MSNBC or The New York Times. It's from Fortune Magazine, not a particular friend to this Administration.

Is there any wonder the Administration is responding with caution? --Bob

Soooo, the cheap shot at Issa contributed how to your response?

The key word (highlighted above) in your response is "if."

And the Bush reference (kudos for again bringing him into the conversation. I had no idea he was that powerful. You'd think Obama could get some of his power instead of always being at the mercy of "headwinds," "the other side," etc, etc, etc.) was neat; the difference there is that he had a Congressional Resolution authorizing force.

Well, now Holder had a Congressional contempt finding, so that's something, I guess.

As to proceeding with caution, if that's what ignoring this for 18 months has been, then sure, knock yourself out with the justification.

Let me suggest you go back and find the testimony (in this thread with citation) to the committee by Ken Melson, then the Director of ATFE who testified without DOJ representation and what he had to say.

And not one person has been held accountable, at any level.

Yet two federal agents are dead as well as several hundred Mexicans.

With more to still die according to this cautious Attorney General.

[silverscreenselect]

Yet the Department of Justice admitted that guns were walked when they retracted, 10 months later, the letter they sent Congress saying that no guns were walked. Both letters have been covered in this thread with sources listed.

Incompetence or ignorance, take your pick.

Either way, Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and several hundred Mexicans are dead due to the operation.

And not one person within the ATF or the DOJ has been held responsible.

Not one.

And more people, according to the Attorney General himself, are likely to die because nearly a 1,000 weapons are still unaccounted for.

And still not one person is held responsible.

Not one.

And it looks like the House, led by a chairman with a firearms conviction on his record, has seriously cocked up the investigation. If this story is right, the House concluded that Fast and Furious involved gunrunning when it didn't. If the story is right, the House decided to buy into stories told by people with their own agendas who happened to be peddling a story they liked. Kind of like Bush buying Maliki's stories.

Bob, is there any doubt in your mind that if this was a Bush operation and a Democratic House committee was trying to get to the bottom of it, you would be screaming bloody murder about a coverup at this point? The most favorable possible interpretation to Obama is that thousands of weapons disappeared without anyone knowing what happened to them resulting in hundreds of deaths. Other interpretations range from massive corruption to an enormously boneheaded policy decision. And in all of these, what's underlying this is a refusal by Holder and the administration to investigate and an active attempt to cover it up.

It doesn't matter if the investigation is politically motivated. That's how we get to the bottom of a lot of scandals in this company: People looking to either make a buck or get payback. It doesn't matter if the Republicans haven't handled the investigation well. Obama himself has the clout to order an investigation that "does the job better," and there's nothing stopping the Senate from investigating.

The reason this hasn't been a "big issue" until now is that the mainstream press has chosen not to make an issue of it. If those weapons were showing up in U.S. cities being bought by U.S. gangs and shooting up U.S. citizens in equal numbers, you'd probably see it in quite a different light as well.

Obama is an incompetent who's surrounded himself by incompetent and dangerous fools like Holder and Geithner.

I'd add that you seem to have no problem bringing up every single company that Bain Capital has been responsible for managing in order to find flaws with Romney's management style (and that is fair; Romney's management skills, or lack thereof, are a big consideration in whether to vote for him). But for some reason, Obama's management, mismanagement, or lack of mangement (and Holder's as one of Obama's top advisors) in handling the second most powerful agency under his disposal (second only to the defense department) is off limits, because we should "proceed with caution" because the investigation is politically motivated.

[Flybrick]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/29/issa- ... -cover-up/

In a Friday letter to the DOJ’s Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Grassley and Issa said they’re now concerned retaliation is much more likely following Thursday’s votes to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal and civil contempt of Congress.

“We just learned that ATF senior management placed two of the main whistleblowers who have testified before Congress about Fast and Furious under the supervision of someone who vowed to retaliate against them,” they wrote before describing how senior political figures have made dangerous threats before.

Grassley and Issa said that in early 2011, right around the time Grassley first made public the whistleblowers’ allegations about Fast and Furious, Scot Thomasson – then the chief of the ATF’s Public Affairs Division – said, according to an eyewitness account: “We need to get whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowers] and take them down.”

Thomasson also allegedly said that: “All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f—k these guys.”

According to Grassley and Issa, when Thomasson was asked about whistleblowers’ allegations that guns were allowed to walk, Thomasson said he “didn’t know and didn’t care.”

The two lead Fast and Furious investigators also released new, never-before-public documents that show officials in ATF’s Washington headquarters were trying to cover up Fast and Furious two weeks before Grassley ever even asked about it.

Grassley didn’t confront the Justice Department or ATF with those questions until Jan. 27, 2011, but ATF headquarters had prepped internal talking points as early as Jan. 12, 2011.

In that Jan. 12, 2011, memo, ATF officials laid out expected questions about gunwalking in Fast and Furious and Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder with Fast and Furious weapons – and canned answers ATF officials were supposed to give to press or anyone else asking about it.

For instance, a couple of expected questions include: “Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry was shot and killed after he and his team encountered several suspects near Rio Rico, Ariz. At least four suspects are in custody while one is still being pursued. Was a gun trafficked in this case used in the murder?” and “We understand that a firearm bought in connection with this ATF investigation was used to murder Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry. Can you please comment on this information?”

ATF officials were encouraged to not respond to those questions. Instead, they were told by leadership in Washington to give one of these answers spinning his murder to stress ATF’s need to accomplish its mission with Fast and Furious:


-“The death of Agent Terry in tragic and is a sad and dark day for all of law enforcement. We’ve lost one of our own. This is another example of the dangers faced by law enforcement every day across this country when pursuing these violent criminals.”

-“Agent Terry’s death is the exact reason why we must continue going after those who are determined to destroy the lives of so many innocent individuals in our communities by plying their illicit trade. For those who would say it is Mexico’s problem, I say Agent Terry’s death and all of those who have perished because of this violence prove that this challenge belongs to everyone.”

-“The investigation into the murder of Agent Terry is active and ongoing. ATF has pledged its support and resources to bring to justice the perpetrators who are guilty of that crime. I won’t say anything here today to jeopardize that investigation or the subsequent prosecution of those responsible for this terrible crime.”

-“The murder of Agent Terry is a tragic loss that has been felt throughout the United States and underscores the dangers that law enforcement officers face every day. As the investigation continues into this heinous crime, our hearts go out to Agent Terry’s family and his fellow Border Patrol Agents who continue to risk their lives to protect the citizens of our great Country.”

Grassley and Issa released other internal documents, including emails, with their Friday letter to Horowitz. The documents show that soon-to-be-former Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich – who is resigning to lead the University of Baltimore School of Law – may have been in on this cover-up plan.

Weich was the author of a false Feb. 4, 2011 letter to Grassley, in which he denied – on behalf of Holder – gunwalking ever took place. Holder’s DOJ withdrew that letter 10 months later, in December 2011.

Weich and now former acting ATF director Ken Melson – who was promoted into DOJ leadership after he secretly deposed Congress without DOJ or ATF counsel – were cc-ed on emails from late January 2011.

Those emails discuss how the DOJ and ATF planned to respond to Grassley’s request for information.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_is ... 828-1.html

In the midst of a fiery floor debate over contempt proceedings for Attorney General Eric Holder, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) quietly dropped a bombshell letter into the Congressional Record.

The May 24 letter to Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), ranking member on the panel, quotes from and describes in detail a secret wiretap application that has become a point of debate in the GOP’s “Fast and Furious” gun-walking probe.

The wiretap applications are under court seal, and releasing such information to the public would ordinarily be illegal. But Issa appears to be protected by the Speech or Debate Clause in the Constitution, which offers immunity for Congressional speech, especially on a chamber’s floor.

According to the letter, the wiretap applications contained a startling amount of detail about the operation, which would have tipped off anyone who read them closely about what tactics were being used.

Holder and Cummings have both maintained that the wiretap applications did not contain such details and that the applications were reviewed narrowly for probable cause, not for whether any investigatory tactics contained followed Justice Department policy.

The wiretap applications were signed by senior DOJ officials in the department’s criminal division, including Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jason Weinstein, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Blanco and another official who is now deceased.

[minimetoo26]

OMG--Brick and I are in agreement on something! Here I thought he only wanted news coverage, which I think is a bad thing for undercover operations, since that allows the bad guys to get away.

But now I see he wants somebody held accountable for gun deaths, outside of the triggerman. Wow. Good luck with that. For decades some people have tried, and all they hear is; "Guns don't kill. People do." They've tried gun dealers, gun manufacturers, the NRA, legislators who fail to close loopholes, Charleton Heston, and nobody ever gets held accountable, outside of the Seung Chos and Jared Loughners and the Long Island Railroad guy and the Columbine Kids and whoever actually pulled the trigger. Never anyone who let the guns into their hands in the first place.

So you've finally found a culprit. Bravo, Sherlock. You've cracked the case!!! Bring us the head of Eric Holder!!!

[Flybrick]

Your unpleasantness aside, this is about a government cover up of details and means regarding the deaths of Agents Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and several hundred Mexicans.

This is about the U.S. Government lying to a neighboring nation about this operation.

This is about this Administration using this tactic to work for the undermining of the 2d Amendment (again, e-mails from ATF officials on this subject are in this thread with news sources cited).

If way back when, Holder had come out and said, "I didn't know about this, but when I found about it, I stopped it and I have fired those responsible."

Thus far, there is serious doubt about when he knew (or didn't know but should have), and not one single person has been held responsible for allowing 2,000 guns to get into the hands of very violent drug cartels.

It's never the crime, it is the cover-up.

Feel free to place me on your "ignore" list and/or don't read the thread if you are bothered that much by it and/or me.

I shall try to carry on with knowledge that you don't approve...

[Bob78164]

Your unpleasantness aside, this is about a government cover up of details and means regarding the deaths of Agents Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, and several hundred Mexicans.

This is about the U.S. Government lying to a neighboring nation about this operation.

This is about this Administration using this tactic to work for the undermining of the 2d Amendment (again, e-mails from ATF officials on this subject are in this thread with news sources cited).

If way back when, Holder had come out and said, "I didn't know about this, but when I found about it, I stopped it and I have fired those responsible."

Thus far, there is serious doubt about when he knew (or didn't know but should have), and not one single person has been held responsible for allowing 2,000 guns to get into the hands of very violent drug cartels.

It's never the crime, it is the cover-up.

Feel free to place me on your "ignore" list and/or don't read the thread if you are bothered that much by it and/or me.

I shall try to carry on with knowledge that you don't approve...

Looks to me like at this point it's about the House majority exploiting a tragedy to score cheap political points while ignoring and obfuscating their own responsibility for failing to pass the laws that might have given agents the authority they needed to actually interdict the guns. --Bob

[Jeemie]

Wow Bob- you emulate Obama even to the point of blaming all his troubles on someone else (usually the opposition party).

Nice work!